Actually it isn't hijacking the thread since it is on the topic of the absence of naval treaties. I welcome any and all speculation on what navies would have built without treaties so that I can make some art work for them.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE Panzer Corps Commander Europe at War John Tiller's Campaign Series The Close Combat Series (all versions) Advanced Tactics Gold

ORIGINAL: Terminus Also, who says that no naval limitation treaty automatically means a building boom? Lots of people lacked lots of money in those days.

There undoubtedly were major fiscal constraints, but if you read through 'Nelson to Vanguard', there seem to have been a bunch of occasions in which the UK, arguably with the most straitened finances, was seriously looking at significant extra construction. In the absence of the treaties it just takes one nation to decide* it needs to modernise its navy (or create jobs, or keep powerful campaign contributor's shipyards busy) to trigger an arms race no matter the financial consequences. Look at late-Cold War Era Russia - massive building programmes, and then suddenly everything changes and even though the military outlay goes away the economy collapses. Not having any money doesn't stop deficit spending plans.

*And Japan might have preferred the treaty option, but had decided on 8+8 if that didn't happen, which would have forced at a minimum the US and UK to respond, and all three sides responsed would ramped up tension in the Pacific, further increasing the likelihood of additional construction.

ORIGINAL: Shark7 given no WNT, in all probability the CA as we know it would not exist. ... The idea of trying to stuff as much stuff on a 10000 ton hull only happened because of the WNT and LNTs.

That's ignoring the Hawkins class. The Treaty cruisers are a convergence on an existing design rather than a solely new concept, equally the Atlantic concepts that preceded the Hawkins show that they are the result of a trend, not a one-off. Atlantic B3 with 8 7.5" on 7400t sounds awfully like a proto-Treaty Cruiser, but is a pre-WWI design. Combine the Atlantic and Hawkins concepts with post-war turret development and even without the treaties you end up with something that looks awfully like a County, or any other Treaty Cruiser.

I'm specifically not saying that other navies would necessarily have gone for similar designs, but the RN's manipulation of Treaty Cruiser limits towards the Hawkins certainly suggests it is a sweet spot for RN requirements and I've seen suggestions the US General Board was seriously fixated on Hawkins as a model threat driving the battlescout designs that eventually fed through into the US interwar cruisers.

ORIGINAL: Shark7 given no WNT, in all probability the CA as we know it would not exist. ... The idea of trying to stuff as much stuff on a 10000 ton hull only happened because of the WNT and LNTs.

That's ignoring the Hawkins class. The Treaty cruisers are a convergence on an existing design rather than a solely new concept, equally the Atlantic concepts that preceded the Hawkins show that they are the result of a trend, not a one-off. Atlantic B3 with 8 7.5" on 7400t sounds awfully like a proto-Treaty Cruiser, but is a pre-WWI design. Combine the Atlantic and Hawkins concepts with post-war turret development and even without the treaties you end up with something that looks awfully like a County, or any other Treaty Cruiser.

I'm specifically not saying that other navies would necessarily have gone for similar designs, but the RN's manipulation of Treaty Cruiser limits towards the Hawkins certainly suggests it is a sweet spot for RN requirements and I've seen suggestions the US General Board was seriously fixated on Hawkins as a model threat driving the battlescout designs that eventually fed through into the US interwar cruisers.

True, and IIRC the Japanese Furutaka class was a direct response to Hawkins.

I think JWE is more on target as the 'cruisers' would be more like the Panzerschiffs, specifically made to raid with not a lot of staying power versus anything that could effectively shoot back.

As far as building trends, no doubt they'd have evolved into something not unlike, but also not like the treaty cruisers...the main difference being no limit on displacement leading to either more armor, more guns, more range or more speed; even a combination of all of the above. Like I argued earlier, no treaties you probably end up with 13-15k ton cruisers bery much like the Japanese CAs. The aircraft carrier was coming treaties or no as well...Vindictive, Langley, Hosho...all built prior to the treaties, the treaties just made them far more important than a ship to carry spotter aircraft for the fleet.

Given the absence of the treaties, do you think that the scout cruisers (CLs) would have also been up-gunned to larger caliber main guns?

That's something the US General Board looked at when trying to decide how to respond to the Hawkins, and we're talking everything from the relative sanity of an Omaha with 4x2x8", to things like Design 160, an Omaha mounting 2x1x14", or Design 141, a 27,000 ton, 4x2x16" battlescout, but ultimately they settled on just plain Omahas.

the main difference being no limit on displacement leading to either more armor, more guns, more range or more speed; even a combination of all of the above. Like I argued earlier, no treaties you probably end up with 13-15k ton cruisers bery much like the Japanese CAs.

Treaties may remove absolute limits, but they don't necessarily mean the men from the Treasury give you the budget to fully exploit that freedom. I'm not sure the RN would be allowed to fully exploit a no-Treaty world. I don't know enough about the politics of other nations to venture an opinion.

ORIGINAL: Shark7 I think JWE is more on target as the 'cruisers' would be more like the Panzerschiffs, specifically made to raid with not a lot of staying power versus anything that could effectively shoot back.

I think it depends on what navy you are talking about. The Panzerschiffs were designed from the ground up as commerce raiders. Not a role the Royal Navy had much need for. Undoubtedly cruisers would have gotten larger without the 10,000 ton limit (most Axis CA's got larger even with it), but "bigger for the sake of bigger" is more or less self-defeating. The more resources you tie up in each individual unit the fewer units you can afford overall..., and as the Battle of the River Plate showed the real answer to "bigger" is "more".

Well for an answer to the whole 'bigger for the sake of bigger' argument I can really only say 1 word...Tillman...or rather the 'maximum battleship'.

Granted this came more from the one senator that was tired of the Navy always needing new toys, and the navy never wanted the ships, but the fact that the designs are on paper is a testament to completely over-doing something.

Can't say that it wouldn't be fun to see one of the designs in game though.

Gentlemen, thank you for that interesting read! This is what I call a thread hijack with style!

This forum really only comes second when compared to the really good books on WWII/naval/air stuff out there, and its often a close call.

As I stated above it isn't a hijack if it is on topic and this thread is all about speculation on what warship design would have been without treaties. If no one gives me any ideas then I can't really do much in the way of art for them.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE Panzer Corps Commander Europe at War John Tiller's Campaign Series The Close Combat Series (all versions) Advanced Tactics Gold

Japan develops her cruisers (using Yubari concepts) into something like the Aganos (IJN doctrine and mission). I would think trip turrets would work best because the Japanese liked deck space for air ops and also wanted their cruisers to be a C3I boat for squadron support (IJN doctrine and mission). So perhaps trips for A and X, a twin for B. Oyodo was a panic driven abortion, but was a good hull to put a gnarly Agano on.

Japan wasn't looking to do commerce raiding with warships, nor did she (at the time) have any need for trade-protection warships, so the money saved from the "Heavy Cruiser" program could go into a modern 8/8 fleet program. Which opens the door to:

Brits had a history of doing trade-protection, and developed the Hawkins as a counter to 170mm raiders. Had no armor to speak of, just the ability to reach out and touch someone. Think the Brits would likely twin out the guns and up the displacement so as to give a "true" trade-protection cruiser with a big winkie. Other Euro nations had a history of doing commerce-raiding; mostly with big guns (6"-7") on trade-carriers, but sometimes with warships. So one must consider that aspect, when addressing the RN doctrine and mission thingy.

The rest is a matter of "mission creep". I got a cruiser with an 8" gun; ok, You'll build a raider with a 10" gun. Ok, so I build a "cruiser" with legs, and speed, and size, with 12" guns and tell the wannabes to "c'mon and get some!" You won't need many. I'm thinking about the nominal major out-stations, and can see a division (2) of these at every important station.

Now, the US is a different matter. They don't have the trade patrol imperitives like the UK, they do have some of the fleet protection and squadron C3I imperitives as Japan, but not as intensive. So what does the US do? Especially in response to a "real" big gun cruiser. And what does Japan do? Any why? And how is doctrine and mission defined to make use of these big boys? And how does the redefined doctrine and mission define the characteristics of the vessels.

$hit don't happen in a vacuum. I have no answers, just a straw-man and questions.

I agree that nothing happens in a vacuum, so my take is the old what comes first question. For the sake of argument, lets have the commerce raiding country's building their raiders along the lines of the pocket battleships. 2 or 4 turrets, 4 to 8 guns 10" - 12", 28kn speed and good range/endurance. None of the battleships of the day will be able to catch it. Since we have no cruisers out there because there is no treaty the UK has to either design a "cruiser" that can handle this new threat or build conventional BC's. There is also the option to build a new class that is cheap and they can build a dozen or so to cover all the far flung stations.

If you're taking what-if requests, how about a reconstructed HMS Hood? Only three main battery turrets (triple instead of twin), aft deckhouse extended to cover the space left by removed X turret, and a bridge superstructure similar to the Warspite (i.e. boxy/castle-like).

If you're taking what-if requests, how about a reconstructed HMS Hood? Only three main battery turrets (triple instead of twin), aft deckhouse extended to cover the space left by removed X turret, and a bridge superstructure similar to the Warspite (i.e. boxy/castle-like).

ORIGINAL: Shark7 I think JWE is more on target as the 'cruisers' would be more like the Panzerschiffs, specifically made to raid with not a lot of staying power versus anything that could effectively shoot back.

I think it depends on what navy you are talking about. The Panzerschiffs were designed from the ground up as commerce raiders. Not a role the Royal Navy had much need for. Undoubtedly cruisers would have gotten larger without the 10,000 ton limit (most Axis CA's got larger even with it), but "bigger for the sake of bigger" is more or less self-defeating. The more resources you tie up in each individual unit the fewer units you can afford overall..., and as the Battle of the River Plate showed the real answer to "bigger" is "more".

But what would the ship be which could take down a panzerschiffe... If you speculate a battle cruiser, how many do you have to build to protect enough shipping lanes to support the economy, and what does this take out of battleship construction.

If you want to have fun, get hold of Zim's ancient game Action Stations, and take a Baltimore up against the Graf Spee solo!

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

ORIGINAL: Shark7 I think JWE is more on target as the 'cruisers' would be more like the Panzerschiffs, specifically made to raid with not a lot of staying power versus anything that could effectively shoot back.

I think it depends on what navy you are talking about. The Panzerschiffs were designed from the ground up as commerce raiders. Not a role the Royal Navy had much need for. Undoubtedly cruisers would have gotten larger without the 10,000 ton limit (most Axis CA's got larger even with it), but "bigger for the sake of bigger" is more or less self-defeating. The more resources you tie up in each individual unit the fewer units you can afford overall..., and as the Battle of the River Plate showed the real answer to "bigger" is "more".

But what would the ship be which could take down a panzerschiffe... If you speculate a battle cruiser, how many do you have to build to protect enough shipping lanes to support the economy, and what does this take out of battleship construction.

Mike Scholl does have a point, but he's looking at things from a future perspective. In a rational what-if, one must think in terms of a 1920s perspective, going forward.

@Shark; 'Cruisers' are cruisers; Mission for 'cruisers' compels a moderate sized vessel with long legs and sufficient gun power to be a flotilla leader or provide local protection for trade, as well as doing tactical Fleet scouting. There's some really nasty algorithms for deciding whether they are 6" or 8", but my money's on the 6", for a number of reasons.

Big (heavy) cruisers are a different story. Everybody knew what everybody else was doing, so if anybody came up with a gnarly gun cruiser, somebody would counter, and the paradigm would eventuate into a Panzerschiff model.

@Mike Scholl; Not to say that panzerschiffe were great, just that the model was rational, off a blank slate. If someone could come up with a "raiding/hunting" cruiser, in the non-treaty world, wouldn't someone else come up with a "raider/killer" design? I think so. Thus, I believe that a non-treaty world would eventuate "heavy" cruisers as large, high endurance, moderately armored, moderately big gunned, 'hunter/killer' vessels. I would spend some money to develop high-velocity, long-range, capability.

But that's just me.

[ed] it would be kinda fun to give two sides the same number of shekels and see how they can invest it: guns, ships, R&D, you know... think you would be surprised. Wouldn't mind being First Lord of somewhere in a situation like that.

ORIGINAL: oldman45 Like it was pointed out in the other thread, mission, mission, mission! If we put the pacific in a vacuum and design 3 navy's to operate there; US, Britain, and Japan. We create a start date of 1920. Now lets have some fun

Bingo!! If I had my way there would be a setup phase where people could do what they please within a box constraint. It would be player A vs player B as First Lord, much like the econ model. But that won't happen in the present game. But in a thoughtful mod environment, it could happen. Righteousnes for righteousness sake, is a good thing. So how does righteousnes play? Ooh, good question. Not easy to answer. Have some answers, but they aren't appropriate here. [ed] but yeah, mission, mission, mission. Ciao. John

USA and Japan are "easy" because as they were natural enemies if one build X, the other would build 2X, but Britain had to think on the Italian, German, French fleets, in order to develop a naval building program... If Germany would build 6 Bismarcks, GB would build 6 G3/N3, but if Germany launched 250 U-Boats, GB would build LOT of DDs and only a few BBs...I think u got the idea :)